VZCZCXRO7803
RR RUEHAG RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ
RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHVI #0764/01 0730836
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 140836Z MAR 06 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2712
INFO RUCNMUC/EU CANDIDATE STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RUCNFB/FBI WASHDC
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEAHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 VIENNA 000764 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INL, EUR/ERA, EUR/PGI AND EUR/AGS 
DOJ FOR BRUCE SWARTZ; DHS FOR A/S ELAINE DEZENSKI 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PTER EUN KCRM SNAR EFIN ETTC AU
SUBJECT: MARCH 2-3 U.S.- EU SENIOR LEVEL TALKS ON JUSTICE, 
FREEDOM AND SECURITY 
 
REF: VIENNA 540 
 
VIENNA 00000764  001.2 OF 005 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary.  The Senior Level U.S.-EU Informal 
Meeting on Justice, Freedom, and Security (JLS) was held in 
Vienna March 2 and 3, and covered the full range of JLS 
issues on migration, borders and visas, counter-terrorism and 
security, and law enforcement cooperation.  Among the key 
outcomes of the meeting, both sides agreed to coordinate 
responses to the pending ECJ decision on PNR; to work towards 
finalizing a U.S.-Eurojust agreement; to address the sharing 
of classified information; to deepen coordination on 
terrorist financing; to discuss member states, 
implementation of the EU data retention decision; and to 
continue a dialogue on JLS-related counterterrorism, human 
rights, and international law issues.  U.S. agreed to explore 
options for facilitating visa issuance processes in VWP 
candidate countries, while EU will consider sharing Schengen 
accession review information.  U.S. raised its significant 
concerns over the draft EU data protection framework and its 
potential impacts on law enforcement and judicial 
cooperation.  Delegations discussed potential topics or 
deliverables for the upcoming U.S.-EU JHA Ministerial and 
U.S.-EU Summit, including in the areas of consequence 
management and lost/stolen passports.  (End Summary) 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Austrian and Finnish Presidencies.  Austria, in its 
capacity as EU Presidency and meeting host was the most 
&hands on8 Chair in recent memory.  They repeatedly 
questioned EU positions on which we expressed frustration and 
undertook to attempt to break through apparent impasses and 
speed up EU actions.  While acknowledging the difficulty of 
resolving cross-cutting issues such as different approaches 
to data protection, they consistently suggested 
action-oriented follow-up.  In their welcome statement, the 
Austrians (Sandrisser) urged that, in light of the EU,s new 
JLS External Strategy, the U.S. and EU should intensify their 
cooperation in the field, citing the EU invitation for U.S. 
participation in the May 4-5 Ministerial on Internal Security 
as one opportunity.  Below are highlights from each of the 
three sessions.  Finnish representatives, who said they were 
already preparing for their Presidency, did not participate 
actively in the discussions and only at the meetings end said 
they thought they would have resources to host a JLS meeting 
in Finland in July.  The U.S. Delegation was headed by Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, INL DAS Elizabeth 
Verville and DHS DAS Elaine Dezenski.  See paras 23 and 24 
for full list of participants. 
 
---------------------------------- 
MIGRATION, BORDERS AND VISA ISSUES 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) USDEL (Dezenski) described CBP,s migration to a 
&push8 system for obtaining Passenger Name Records (PNR) 
per the U.S.-EU PNR agreement, noting that three European 
airlines (Aer Lingus, Austrian Air and KLM) have completed 
the transition, but cautioned that the project must also 
build in the need to go back to air carriers for further 
data, if necessary (i.e., unscheduled PUSH). 
 
¶4.  (SBU) With regard to the anticipated ECJ ruling on the 
PNR agreement, the Commission (Margue) urged that both sides 
stay in close touch (including via DVC) in order to prepare 
the groundwork for whatever verdict may emerge.  USDEL agreed. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Margue also urged DHS not seek to renegotiate PNR 
agreement at this sensitive period as the Commission &went 
as far as it could go last time.8  Dezenski replied that it 
was premature to discuss specific changes until we know what 
the ECJ will decide; the important thing was to continue to 
cooperate and that carriers continue to provide PNR to CBP. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) EU representatives raised the expansion of VWP to 
the 10 EU members not currently in the program, citing the 
Commission,s January report on visa reciprocity and urging 
some sort of benchmarks (e.g., visa facilitation, reduction 
of visa fees, timelines) by U.S. before the issuance of their 
next report in June.  EUDEL reiterated the Commission,s 
position that the Roadmap remains an acceptable tool, but 
that it needs to be strengthened considerably (with a 
 
VIENNA 00000764  002.2 OF 005 
 
 
particular emphasis on considerably).  He also noted that if 
progress cannot be illustrated by June, the Commission will 
face significant pressure to propose a more concrete 
response.  USDEL (Dezenski) reviewed negative Congressional 
attitudes towards VWP, described recent Rice-Chertoff efforts 
at visa facilitation, and urged that we make use of new and 
improved technology.  She noted we also shared the goal of 
visa reciprocity and asked if it were possible to share 
Schengen assessment data towards this end.  The Commission 
will undertake to see if this is possible, so long as member 
states agreed.  We also asked what steps the non-Visa Waiver 
Program countries were taking in order to achieve compliance 
with our requirements.  The Commission acknowledged that it 
did not know but would inquire. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) On document security, both sides highlighted that 
progress is being made.  The EU was surprised U.S. tourist 
E-passports will not be issued until end of 2006; all EU 
member states will be required to incorporate facial 
recognition in passports by August 28, 2006.  Furthermore, 
the issue of data protection has complicated the 
implementation of VIS with over 300 amendments to a proposed 
Directive already offered in the European Parliament.  On the 
issue of fingerprint collection, Dezenski remarked that while 
the decision to begin collecting 10 fingerprints as part of 
US-VISIT and visa issuance was made last year, no final 
decision has been made to collect the prints prior to 
departure, despite media reports to the contrary. 
 
------------------------------ 
COUNTER-TERRORISM AND SECURITY 
------------------------------ 
 
¶8.  (SBU) USDEL (Verville) urged greater U.S.-EU cooperation 
to leverage available instruments and mechanisms in the fight 
against crime and corruption at the global, regional and 
bilateral levels.  She emphasized the need for creative new 
approaches to U.S.-EU law enforcement cooperation to parallel 
advances in intra-EU cooperation but cautioned that such 
advances not be permitted to undermine existing U.S. 
bilateral law enforcement cooperation with member States. 
She urged that the JLS talks focus on resolving cross cutting 
issues such as data protection.  The Austrians (Hager) urged 
the EU to treat the U.S. as a &privileged partner8 and not 
to exclude us from the data protection debate. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) USDEL (Swartz) reviewed summit follow-up actions, 
urging greater cooperation in detection and prosecution 
measures in regards to counterterrorism policy and stressed 
the need not to undercut U.S. ability to share information 
bilaterally.  He also suggested the two sides work on a study 
of consequence management; the Austrians (Hager) noted this 
could be a possible summit topic.  USDEL (Dezenski) suggested 
exchange of &best practices8 on how to stimulate a 
public-private dialogue on the subject. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The Austrians (Hager) described the EU,s work on 
Recruitment and Radicalization, including a dialogue of 
cultures and religions seminar and other meetings.  Swartz 
also described DOJ work in this field and suggested the two 
sides cooperate closely and share experiences.  He asked for 
a list of the meetings and their agendas so that appropriate 
U.S. experts could be selected to participate. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) On terrorist financing, USDEL (Richard) urged both 
sides take broader view of the mandate than just designation 
and suggested that a list of upcoming meetings would help 
prevent duplication of effort and training.  He cited the 
importance of analysis of terrorist accounts.  The Commission 
said it would welcome a U.S. presentation on non-profit 
organizations (i.e., charities). 
 
¶12.  (SBU) With regard to extremists, use of the internet, 
USDEL (Swartz) noted the need to determine if the conduct is 
criminal in nature and the necessity to have the tools in 
place to trace and recover messages.  Burrows (DOJ) noted 
that we strongly supported the Council of Europe,s 
Cyber-crime Convention, but were troubled by the idea of a 
cyber terrorism protocol, which had no added value.  Both the 
Presidency and the Commission noted that there was no EU 
 
VIENNA 00000764  003.3 OF 005 
 
 
position on the issue.  The Austrian Presidency stated that 
it would oppose development of the COE cyber terrorism 
protocol. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) On the EU Data Retention Directive, USDEL 
(Richard) noted our desire to ensure that when Member States 
consider national legislation concerning procedures for law 
enforcement to gain access to the retained data, that they 
include provisions for third countries likewise to gain 
access.  U.S. indicated its intent to take this matter up 
with Member States on a bilateral basis.  He indicated an 
expectation that existing MLATS would be available for 
gaining access to the data, but USDEL pointed out we didn,t 
have MLATs with all Member States, and in any case they would 
not address our real-time needs in this area.  Commission 
said it would be willing to organize an expert meeting with 
the U.S. to review its concerns and the Council (De Kerchove) 
also urged the U.S. to discuss this at EU level before it did 
so bilaterally. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Austrians (Hager) noted ongoing COE and European 
Parliamentary (EP) investigation of U.S. activities with 
regards to U.S. counterterrorism efforts and human rights and 
international law; USDEL (Swartz and Propp) pointed out that 
this has been discussed at high levels and State Legal 
Adviser Bellinger had recently visited Brussels to discuss it 
further.  Propp noted that the U.S. was open to further 
dialogue, but added that it was difficult to see how the 
COE/EP investigations would contribute to this.  Council 
representative (De Kerchove) called Bellinger visit a good 
first step, but urged that the dialogue continue, lest the 
issue affect U.S.-EU law enforcement cooperation.  Both the 
Council and the Austrians indicated that this subject could 
be expected to be raised at the JHA Ministerial as well. 
 
¶15.  (SBU) With regard to Lost and Stolen passports, USDEL 
(Dezenski) described a pilot project with Interpol to provide 
DHS officials with the ability to screen all incoming 
passengers against the Interpol Stolen and Lost Travel 
Documents database in real time.  She urged robust reporting 
by all states and an improvement of standards, such as prompt 
reporting of lost and stolen documents, and 24 hour points of 
contact, and suggested that non-personal data such as date of 
issue might also be included.  Austrian representative 
(Strondl) replied EU was also supporting Interpol and that EU 
member state reporting has improved since January.  He also 
indicated that a broader use of the system at border crossing 
points and ports of entry based on the Swiss model will be 
included in SISII.  Both sides mentioned this as possible 
summit or ministerial deliverable, and A/S Dezenski praised 
the move to link INTERPOL connections as part of the SISII 
architecture. 
 
¶16.  (SBU) The USDEL (Dezenski) offered to facilitate a port 
tour and meeting with CBP officials responsible for training 
for Frontex and other EU officials, following up on previous 
engagements with that office.  Recognizing that Frontex is an 
independent agency, additional outreach directly to Frontex 
staff will be initiated. 
 
---------------------------------- 
JUSTICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶17.  (SBU) A lengthy debate on the sharing of classified 
information and the problems related to the negotiation of a 
U.S. cooperation agreement with Eurojust led to a further 
exchange on the problems associated with the different 
approaches of the U.S. and the EU to data protection. 
Despite U.S. skepticism Eurojust said it would attempt a 
redraft of the proposed agreement (based on OECD data 
protection guidelines) for further discussion with the U.S. 
USDEL (Swartz and Richard) expressed their frustration that 
the Eurojust agreement could not be modeled on the successful 
U.S.-Europol cooperation agreement.  In response to questions 
from Austria and the Council, Swartz said U.S. could agree to 
a cut and paste version of the Europol agreement and 
expressed a willingness to meet with appropriate EU officials 
to further discuss U.S. concerns.  The Council questioned 
Eurojust on its insistence on an additional layer of data 
 
VIENNA 00000764  004.2 OF 005 
 
 
protection requirements and suggested that Eurojust present a 
redraft of the agreement based on the Europol agreement to 
the ministers and ask for their support, even if some 
Eurojust data protection experts did not approve of the 
language.  In other words, get on with it. 
 
¶18.  (SBU) The Presidency agreed to support U.S. efforts to 
obtain the signature of all 25 member states ) and in 
particular Italy and Malta ) to the bilateral protocols 
implementing the U.S. ) EU MLAT before the end of the 
Austrian Presidency.  The Council agreed to prepare a report 
on the status of member state efforts to ratify the U.S.-EU 
agreements and bilateral protocols. 
 
¶19.  (SBU) A detailed discussion led by USDEL Richard 
followed concerning the proposed Framework Decision on 
sharing police and judicial information.  The U.S. expressed 
its concern that existing sharing arrangements with 3rd 
parties would be jeopardized.  The EU did not take issue with 
the proposition that the proposal would significantly alter 
the current way in which we exchange information at police 
and judicial levels.  The EU noted that so far three 
different approaches are on the table in their internal 
discussions: 1) delete entirely any reference in the text to 
sharing with third countries; 2) adopt the approach set forth 
in the current proposal; or 3) make the basis for sharing 
with third countries even more rigorous.  We were encouraged 
to make our views known before any decisions are made by the 
EU.  The EU suggested that existing MLATs would probably be 
grandfathered in, but USDEL pointed out we don,t have 
comprehensive MLATs with all EU countries, that non-binding 
MOUs and informal sharing arrangements also had to be 
protected from interference, and in any event subsequent 
protocols to such agreements would not be covered.  USDEL 
expressed its great concern regarding this proposed Framework 
Decision, noting that it might undo all the bilateral law 
enforcement cooperation that both sides are dependent on. 
 
¶20.  (SBU) The Austrians (Hager) described the Presidency 
priorities related to the Western Balkans, which include an 
action-oriented paper on the region, and will culminate in 
the May 4-5 Ministerial in Vienna.  He also noted that DEA 
Administrator Tandy had accepted an invitation to a May 
31-June 2 workshop on &Drug Trafficking on the Balkan 
route.8  USDEL (Swartz and Verville) urged continued and 
closer cooperation in the region and underscored that the 
region remains a high priority for the USG.  Verville 
welcomed EU plans for increased assistance as timely in view 
of our decreasing ability to provide technical assistance as 
countries become EU members.  She noted our strong support 
over the years for SECI and the contributions of our 
International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Budapest and 
said that the U.S. was working on a future strategy for this 
region and would welcome ongoing dialogue as we develop this 
strategy. 
 
¶21.  (SBU) With regard to Afghan drugs, Hager indicated the 
Austrians were preparing an action-oriented paper on the 
problem and would welcome U.S. input and cooperation.  Both 
sides agreed on further promoting the EU Counternarcotics 
Trust Fund at future meetings at the UN Office on Drugs and 
Crime, such as the upcoming Commission on Narcotic Drugs. 
 
¶22.  (SBU) On Europol cooperation, USDEL (Swartz and Richard) 
expressed regret that FBI liaison did not have full access to 
all the analytical work, nor could he participate in some of 
the meetings.  The Austrians (Hager) requested additional 
information on the issue, but noted that not all Europol 
meetings were open to third countries. 
 
¶23. (U) The EU delegation included: Austrian Ministry of 
Interior: Dr. Wilhelm Sandrisser (head, International 
Relations Department), Dr. Peter Widermann (SCIFA head), 
Berndt Korner, Robert Strondl (CATS national representative), 
Kurt Hager (CATS head), EU Coordination officers Elisabeth 
Wenger, Petra Linter, Carina Jany, Antonio Martino, Martin 
David (Multilateral Affairs) and Martin Weiss (EU delegation, 
Brussels); Austrian Ministry of Justice: Dr. Roland Miklau 
(CATS head), Ingrid Worgotter, Irene Gartner, Christian 
Pilnacek and Stefan Benner; European Commission: Tung-Li 
 
VIENNA 00000764  005.2 OF 005 
 
 
Margue (Director, General Affairs, DG JLS), Joannes de 
Ceuster (Head of Borders and Visas Unit), Lotte Knudsen (Head 
of External Relations Unit), Heike Buss (U.S. desk officer), 
Andrew Denison (U.S. desk officer, DG RELEX), Temo Baltazar 
(EU Delegation to U.S.), Bert Eleveld (Large-scale IT systems 
unit); European Council: Giles De  Kerchove (General 
Director, Directorate 2), Paul Hickey (General Director, 
Directorate 1); Finland: Pentti Visanen (DG, Immigration, 
Ministry of Interior), Antti Pelttari, DG, Ministry of 
Interior), Kari Rantama (Deputy National Police 
Commissioner), Matti Joutsen; EUROJUST: Michael Kennedy 
 
¶24. (U) The U.S. delegation included: Elizabeth Verville (INL 
DAS for Crime), Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce 
Swartz, DHA Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Elaine 
Dezenski, Kenneth Propp (L/LEI), Laura McKechnie (INL), Negah 
Angha (CA), Alessandro Nardi (EUR/ERA), Mark Richard 
(DOJ/USEU), Frank Kerber (USEU), Rebecca Bosley (USEU), 
George Hardy (SECI Center, Bucharest), Thomas Burrows (DOJ), 
Benjamin Longlet (DOJ), Michael Scardavillle (DHS), James 
Connell (American Embassy Vienna). 
 
¶25. (U) This cable was cleared by the delegation. 
McCaw